Slashdot Mirror

Fat fucks kill other people too.

Do you have something to refute or are you blowing a lot of hot air again?

Even though you don't like reality doesn't mean you get to assert alternate "facts".

Pentagon is still preparing for global warming even though Trump said to stop
Climate change threatens half of US bases worldwide, Pentagon report finds
The Pentagon erases ‘climate change’ from report drafted during Obama administration

That last one shows how an ill-informed leadership can steer misinformation to suit a political message, even at the risk of our national defense.

I certainly trust veterans with firearms much more than I do police in the USA. At least veterans have proper respect beaten into us.

You can't beat respect into someone. You can beat rifle skills into them, but not respect. You can beat violence into them, but not respect. You can beat a dark future for humanity into them, but not respect.

It's a fact that the military has had to dig deeper and deeper into the barrel as people have become more and more aware that our military exists to project power and maintain our empire, and not to make the world a better place. That's why racism is a massive problem in the military which is trickling down to law enforcement. Military may receive better training, but that's not a good thing when they're someone who never should have had military training in the first place. They will be inclined to use the deadly parts of their military training right along with the parts you like. And if they joined up in the first place because they're a bully who wanted to push people around, they're just going to do more of that as a cop.

The idea that soldiers are more responsible than the average member of the population is beyond ridiculous. There are many reasons why people might join up, and the military cannot afford to reject those who do not meet their standards, because they would otherwise be even shorter on recruits than they think they are already.

you are looking at a total cost ranging from $37,500,000 to $250,000,000. .

I just looked it up, its a shame the President couldn't spend the same 2 minutes on research as I did to save himself from looking like a complete tool.
The cost to support all Trans military personal is estimated at $8M/year, compared with $84M/year the military spends annually just on erectile dysfunction medicines. http://www.militarytimes.com/p... How does that fit with your hypothesis?
I'm also going to guess that removing all those people from active service will cost more than $8M, so it has precisely zero to do with cost.savings.

Perhaps he's promoted Steve Bannon to General. After all, we know this is where it's coming from.

Interesting peek into your thought process. . . .

The military is building a case to block transgender applicants — at least for now

WASHINGTON — A controversial Pentagon directive that would allow transgender men and women to join the military beginning this summer now faces indefinite delay as senior leaders within each of the services voice lingering concerns about the Obama-era policy intended to end discrimination but dismissed by critics as social experimentation.

This development, confirmed to Military Times by multiple sources with knowledge of these internal discussions, comes as the Defense Department faces a July 1 deadline to fully implement a policy that one year ago lifted the ban on transgender personnel already in uniform, and established the conditions and timeline by which new applicants could join either through enlistment or as officer candidates.

I'm aware of these things. But if anything this means there's no need to gild the lily. Overblown reactions don't stop him, if anything they help him. Mr. Trump works by piling on the BS so fast you're constantly working on yesterday's news.

It's important to set priorities, and I'd say priority should go to the things which have no reasonable excuse, especially as there's no shortage of them (e.g. Trump's suggestion that he may use the CIA to seize Iraq's oil. Even if that weren't really bad foreign policy, it's a patently moronic idea, like invading Switzerland and taking all the chocolate.

President Trump Is Likely To Boost U.S. Military Spending By $500 Billion To $1 Trillion

Trump's military will have more troops and more firepower — if he can find more money

Does he want to cut WASTEFUL spending like the Navy weapon that by supplying the projectile will cost more than the gun, or an aircraft that is considered by some as inferior such as the F-35? that a retrofit for an existing aircraft would do. Yes, then he does want to cut WASTEFUL spending.

Libertarian, too bad you can't find a candidate that isn't a non-interventionalist. Come on, Americans love to meddle. If you can't win this election you should just give up. Disband. Whatever parties do when they are no longer relevant.

Either you don't know what you're talking about, or you're purposely spreading misinformation. I have a lot of issues with Gary Johnson, but he's explicitly stated several times that he's in favor of non-intervention, and wants to cut military spending by 20%. This stance is popular with the troops, as Johnson leads both Clinton & Trump in that demographic.

We had enough to destroy them 10x over. Being able to do it 20x over doesn't make us any more powerful.

Of course, it does. Your logic only works, if all missiles available will remain operational and reach their targets if launched.

But that's not a valid assumption. Consider, for example, the possibility of one side's launchers — submarines, bombers, mobile launchers, or stationary silos — being disabled and/or taken-over somehow. They aren't run always by the best, unfortunately...

If a mere handful of such installations need to survive for us to remain capable of annihilating the enemy, they would not risk it. But, if our counter-attack requires, say, 50% of them to be operational, the enemy might attempt such an action.

Similar arithmetic applies, if the target's defenses are deemed capable of destroying a significant fraction of incoming missiles. Russia already fears our interception technology, for example, and has its own. If such defenses can take out 90% of the incoming, you do need to fire 10x more. And you better use 20x more to be sure...

People aren't outraged by it because it's not true. The DHS did not purchase 1.2 billion hollow point bullets this year. Domestic police forces use hollow point ammunition because they are less prone to ricochet and over-penetration, which are important considerations for a police force. Also, the DHS did not buy 1,300 armored vehicles. You are talking about the MRAP. The DHS has sixteen MRAPs they use to serve high-risk warrants. These DHS MRAPs were given to them by the military. The 1,300 armored vehicle figure is a hoax. It refers to MRAP upgrades by the US military.

The facts are easily accessible due to the Internet, but conspiracy theorists are always unable to find that information out of willful blindness. You make good points on warrantless wiretaps and the erosion of our rights in light of the USA PATRIOT ACT. But when you start talking about tanks and billions of rounds of ammunition, which simply isn't true, you paint yourself as a conspiracy theorist, which dilutes your point.

He's right. At one time, I "had a friend" that would have put a bullet through Assanges' head on "unofficial" orders.

Is that a fact? And your friend actually told you this*? Leaves me wondering what kind of a friend you have there, sharing what would obviously be highly classified information. . .if true. . . for you to spread around? Even more so, does he have friends . . . . or maybe a team (?) of his own preparing for action against Assange . . . . maybe with FBI support?

I would think that when it comes to Assange, even if the US government was inclined to direct action, they would be open to following Napoleons advice: Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake. Assange has made plenty of them, and they seem to be continuing. Instead of going to Sweden to clear his name, he has managed to commit actual offenses in the UK (jumping bail and fleeing the law) and confine himself in a small apartment for an indefinite term. As things are going he could easily be there for years, ultimately be captured and sent to Sweden, be cleared in Sweden, and then returned to the UK to face charges for jumping bail and fleeing the law.

Besides, since the US only waterboarded three people, the most recent in about 2003 in pretty much the immediate aftermath of 9/11 to try to get some insight into Al Qaeda's next attack after having just suffered 3,000 dead, and there has been endless carping about it ever since, what do you think would happen if the US employed your "friend", or someone that is actually dangerous, to kill a "journalist" like Assange, and word got out -as it inevitably would? Somehow I just don't see that happening since Assange hasn't actually participated in direct warfare against the US, unlike Al Awlaki.

In any event, you can rest assured that Julian Assange takes strong evasive measures whenever possible - no catching him with his pants . . . down.

* So you fancy your friend as the ruthless sort then?

Its true you can't in every case, but when the Pentagon confirms it is that good enough? http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2010/04/ap_firefight_video_040510/

Before you start calling someone a liar, check your facts.

Civilian

"A civilian under International Humanitarian Law is a person who is not a member of his or
her country's armed forces."

    I guess you could say "Some people" use it that way.

Ratification of IHL by nation and treaty

    Oh, 194 nations have signed GC I-IV 1949. ya..

    You can get more IHL info here.

    The news reports cited the two officers as "civilian police officer"

    "Civilian police officer Sergeant Kimberly Munley"
    "Civilian police officer Sergeant Mark Todd"

http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=65937

"The buildings that comprised the Soldier Family Readiness Center sit on top of a hill. Civilian police officer Sgt. Kimberly Munley, who was nearby doing routine daily maintenance on her patrol car when the gunshots rang out, was able to approach the scene using one of the buildings as cover. "

"Mark Todd, another civilian officer, rushed up the hill and began firing at Hasan."

http://militarytimes.com/news/2009/11/ap_army_hood_carnage_110609/

"Around this time, Fort Hood Police Sgt. Kimberly Munley got the call of "shots fired." The SRP isn't on Munley's beat; she was in the area because her vehicle was in the shop."

So, yes, an armed civilian, who was in the area. Munley wasn't on duty, providing security services to that location. She was with her patrol car at the shop.

I looked around a little. I didn't find what Todd was doing. If I remember right though, he was doing traffic control nearby.

Anywhoo if we ever design a bomb that would cleanly kill all the people, it'd probably never actually get used. Just doesn't have the intimidation value of a good old fashioned nuke. Now a bomb that makes you gay... THAT would get top billing in our military arsenal!

Just thought I'd add to this discussion:
http://gizmodo.com/363985/air-force-buys-300-playstation-3-for-research
This came out about a year or so ago.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=air+force+research+laboratory+ps3&aq=0&oq=
They did this because the comparative price was a bargain.
http://militarytimes.com/forums/showthread.php?p=88652
http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2008/03/airforce_playstation_031308/

I have to get back to work now.

Just thought I'd add to this discussion:
http://gizmodo.com/363985/air-force-buys-300-playstation-3-for-research
This came out about a year or so ago.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=air+force+research+laboratory+ps3&aq=0&oq=
They did this because the comparative price was a bargain.
http://militarytimes.com/forums/showthread.php?p=88652
http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2008/03/airforce_playstation_031308/

I have to get back to work now.

groups that are polling strongly pro-Obama (e.g., active duty military...

...hate to burst your bubble, but....

http://www.militarytimes.com/static/projects/pages/081003_ep_2pp.pdf

You'll notice only one mostly blue pie-chart out of the 15 on the page, then you can look at the heading for the obvious reason behind the result.

You are correct that this is part of an overall effort to end de-facto military disenfranchisement, but your specific facts are a little bit off here. Being active duty, I'm a little bit more familiar:

        The problem wasn't that Florida didn't want to count late ballots that were postmarked on time. The problem is that many of the military ballots weren't postmarked at all because military personnel serving in certain parts of the world get free postage. Back then, the envelopes simply weren't stamped or postmarked and the post-office would move them along because of the return addresses (APO or FPO with particular zip-codes). Knowing that the military regularly votes Republican by about a 3-to-1 margin, Democratic lawyers got over 1500 military ballots thrown out in Florida on the technicality that they were not postmarked by the deadline, even though some of them had arrived well before the postmark deadline. I still vividly remember a video that went around of Democratic lawyers and staffers cheering and chest-bumping (yes, literally chest-bumping) in the hallway outside of a courtroom when someone came out of the courtroom to announce the decision (and yet some people are still surprised when I tell them how heavily Republican the military leans). Basically, the military lost that lawsuit, they didn't win it. In response, the policy on handling the free postage was changed. Now, when I am deployed in a region where I get free postage, I hand my letter to the guy behind the postal counter and he puts a free stamp on it and then post-marks it. They always have a big supply of first-class stamps behind the counter for exactly that reason.

        I'm registered to vote in Nevada, so my problem is a little bit different: unlike Florida, Nevada election law doesn't have a postmark date requirement, but rather an arrival date requirement: absentee ballots must be received no later than 1900 on election day. Nevada (or at least Washoe County, where I vote) also tends to send out absentee ballots about three weeks before election day. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that a ballot isn't going to make it to persian gulf and back in three weeks. As a result, I've managed to get my absentee ballot in on time only once since I left home at the age of eighteen ten years ago. This year I happened to be home for a friend's wedding during early voting, so I voted in person for the very first time in my life. An internet-based voting system like the one described would allow me to participate in every election instead of less than half of them.

From reading comments on the original article, I get the impression that there's at least 3-4 parties that would have to sign off on these loaded cruise missiles (including the crews that loaded the missiles on the planes and the pilots). Apparently, part of that checklist includes verifying that the missiles don't have warheads present and everyone who signs off can verify it (there is apparently a small window or eyelet to verify the presence or absence of a warhead). Further, this sort of cruise missile apparently (I parrot info I read on the web somewhere so it must be true) only carries nuclear payloads. Something seriously wrong happened. It is plausible that these weapons were mishandled in the way claimed in the story. The error mode does exist IMHO. But the alternate theories are plausible as well. This is one of the reasons that mishandling nukes is so bad. Because due to the highly secretive nature of nuclear weapon delivery systems, it is hard to distinguish between an accident and something more malign.